Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 99292 times)

mrswah and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Myster

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3345 on: March 14, 2019, 05:31:25 PM »
Does anyone know where I can buy an outlined handheld?... Currys or Argos maybe?  Or is there somewhere else cheaper?

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3346 on: March 15, 2019, 07:35:50 AM »
Hi Caroline, itís left me a bit puzzled I must say, I can understand the argument about false confessions, but, when someone admits in court and demonstrates how they killed her, then 10months after apologises to having killed her, the fact that DNA from Tabak  was found on her body behind her knees and on her breasts, it was an open and shut case, the only argument he had was manslaughter and not murder, which thank god he got the latter.  *%87

Hi J - good to see you posting again! X

Part of Nine's argument is that this murder never happened and that all has been created - as a conspiracy theory, it's a FIRST for me!  %56&

Offline Real justice

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3347 on: March 15, 2019, 10:26:34 AM »
Hi J - good to see you posting again! X

Part of Nine's argument is that this murder never happened and that all has been created - as a conspiracy theory, it's a FIRST for me!  %56&
Hi Caroline, WOW, thatís really interesting, I think Nine is on the wrong forum for his idea to string along, maybe on the blue forum with Mike, David and Nugnug. 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 04:46:13 PM by Real justice »

Offline ......

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3348 on: March 15, 2019, 02:38:02 PM »
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy

Quote
What is often forgotten, too, is that any trial connected to Joanna's murder could have been compromised because of the press coverage. If Tabak had denied killing Joanna, the coverage of Jefferies might have created doubt in jurors' minds - it it had even gone to a jury. As it was, he admitted manslaughter so that element of doubt was removed but it could have been very different.

An interesting point made by said poster....

Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...

* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010

* We have CJ's arrest December 2010

* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011

* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011

* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011

* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011

* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,

* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011

* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011

* We  have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as  guilty in contempt of court July 2011

* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011


The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...

But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...


This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??

It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??

People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..

Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??

CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't...  He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....

This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....

Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....

I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....

All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....

And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???

Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3349 on: March 15, 2019, 04:23:10 PM »
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy

An interesting point made by said poster....

Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...

* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010

* We have CJ's arrest December 2010

* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011

* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011

* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011

* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011

* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,

* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011

* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011

* We  have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as  guilty in contempt of court July 2011

* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011


The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...

But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...


This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??

It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??

People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..

Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??

CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't...  He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....

This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....

Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....

I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....

All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....

And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???

Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129

He could have denied it but would then have had to explain why HIS DNA was found on the murder victim's body! There would have been no doubt in the jury's mind because it's impossible to leave your DNA on the body of someone you have never had contact with. It REALLY IS that simple!

"It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??"

The the family and friends of JY, her partner and anyone who believes a scuzzy killer of decent people should be locked up where they can't hurt anyone else!

Offline Real justice

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3350 on: March 15, 2019, 05:43:31 PM »
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy

An interesting point made by said poster....

Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...

* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010

* We have CJ's arrest December 2010

* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011

* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011

* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011

* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011

* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,

* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011

* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011

* We  have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as  guilty in contempt of court July 2011

* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011


The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...

But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...


This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??

It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??

People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..

Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??

CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't...  He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....

This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....

Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....

I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....

All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....

And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???

Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129
Hi Nine, probably Tabak admitted to manslaughter when he realised that the  DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it not being his, manslaughter would have carried a lesser sentence than murder, something he had already read up on in English Law. 

Offline ......

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3351 on: March 16, 2019, 11:45:48 AM »
Hi Nine, probably Tabak admitted to manslaughter when he realised that the  DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it not being his, manslaughter would have carried a lesser sentence than murder, something he had already read up on in English Law.

Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!

As you say... It didn't belong to him....

when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,


Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3352 on: March 16, 2019, 12:56:58 PM »
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!

As you say... It didn't belong to him....

when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,


You're capacity for misreading is truly amazing. RJ didn't state that the DNA "didn't belong to him". They are your words. Claiming that the chances of it NOT belonging to VT are "a billion to one" against is likely to as close as any scientist will get to making a finite statement. Liken it, if you will, to the grading of the top quality diamonds, ie D-F. As quality decreases it then runs through the whole alphabet to Z. Why is there not an A-C quality? Because whilst perfection has already been found, there has to be space allowed just in case D-F is ever bettered. As diamonds have been laying in the ground for millions of years, although mined for rather less, I imagine there is every confidence that D-F will never be bettered. Nonetheless, such a find has to be allowed for. Hence the billion to one chance that the DNA found on JY's body belonged to no one OTHER than VT.

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3353 on: March 16, 2019, 01:05:05 PM »
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!

As you say... It didn't belong to him....

when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,

It DID belong to him!

Offline ......

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3354 on: March 16, 2019, 01:10:20 PM »

You're capacity for misreading is truly amazing. RJ didn't state that the DNA "didn't belong to him". They are your words. Claiming that the chances of it NOT belonging to VT are "a billion to one" against is likely to as close as any scientist will get to making a finite statement. Liken it, if you will, to the grading of the top quality diamonds, ie D-F. As quality decreases it then runs through the whole alphabet to Z. Why is there not an A-C quality? Because whilst perfection has already been found, there has to be space allowed just in case D-F is ever bettered. As diamonds have been laying in the ground for millions of years, although mined for rather less, I imagine there is every confidence that D-F will never be bettered. Nonetheless, such a find has to be allowed for. Hence the billion to one chance that the DNA found on JY's body belonged to no one OTHER than VT.

But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way....  Or the killer....

Now this is only a theory....


And he isn't your diamond geezer.....


Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3355 on: March 16, 2019, 02:29:07 PM »
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way....  Or the killer....

Now this is only a theory....


And he isn't your diamond geezer.....


Could you quote that part where I stated he was, please?

Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3356 on: March 16, 2019, 02:34:12 PM »
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!

As you say... It didn't belong to him....

when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,


Mmm. Might it be possible that you're reading the "billion to one chance" of it NOT being his as "a billion to one chance" of it BEING his? It might explain the misinterpretation.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 02:37:33 PM by APRIL »

Offline Real justice

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3357 on: March 16, 2019, 02:54:57 PM »
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way....  Or the killer....

Now this is only a theory....


And he isn't your diamond geezer.....
The DNA didnít match JY it matched Tabak, they have to be identical twins from the same egg to have a perfect match and even then a few random mutations in some cells can prove which one.

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3358 on: March 16, 2019, 03:13:52 PM »
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way....  Or the killer....

Now this is only a theory....


And he isn't your diamond geezer.....

You're making this up as you go along. You accuse others of fake news and that's what you have just done!

Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3359 on: March 16, 2019, 03:29:26 PM »
The DNA didnít match JY it matched Tabak, they have to be identical twins from the same egg to have a perfect match and even then a few random mutations in some cells can prove which one.
You're making this up as you go along. You accuse others of fake news and that's what you have just done!


There looks as if there may be a greater degree of misinterpretation here, than I first thought.